KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and ... · KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
U.S.C. § 103Graham v. John Deere The TSM TestTrial Court RulingFederal Circuit and the TSM TestThe Supreme Court Weighs InKey QuotesA Return to GrahamPossible Impact
A patent may not be obtained… If the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. . .
Graham v. John Deere“Under § 103:The scope and content of the prior art are to be determined Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent artare resolved. Against this background the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determinedSuch secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.”
Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation test:– Claim is obvious only if the prior art,
the problem’s nature, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art reveals some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings. See, e.g., Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-1324 (CA Fed. 1999)
Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,237,565 to Engelgau (“Adjustable Pedal Assembly With Electronic Throttle Control”)Basic idea: adjustable pedal with electronic sensor for transmitting pedal’s position to vehicle computer; sensor mounted to fixed support so that pedal can be adjusted without moving the sensor
4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12) comprising:
a support (18) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle structure (20);
an adjustable pedal assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in force and aft directions with respect to said support (18);
a pivot (24) for pivotally supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22) with respect to said support (18) and defining a pivot axis (26); and
an electronic control (28) attached to said support (18) for controlling a vehicle system;
said apparatus (12) characterized by said electronic control (28) being responsive to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32) that corresponds to pedal arm position as said pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26) between rest and applied positions wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24).
Trial court granted KSR’s S/J motion of invalidity under § 103– Applying Graham, court found “little
difference” between art and claim– Also held that KSR had satisfied the TSM test
State of industry would have led to combination of sensors and adjustable pedalsRixon provided basis for developmentsSmith taught a solution to wire chafing problems of RixonAsano (adjustable pedal with fixed pivot point) could therefore be combined with other references
Trial Court RulingAsano (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,782) discloses all structural limitations of adjustable pedal exceptfor electronic control for engine throttle
Trial Court RulingRixon (U.S. Patent No. 5,819,593) disclosed adjustable pedal with position sensorToo complex and suffers from “wire chafing” when adjusting pedal
Trial Court RulingSmith (U.S. Patent No. 5,063,811) disclosed attachment of electronic control to a support bracketNot an adjustable pedal“[W]iring to the electrical components must be secure from the possibility of chafing which will eventually result in electrical failure.”
Trial Court RulingRedding (U.S. Patent No. 5,460,061) cited by PTO against broader claims in combination with Smith (Redding taught adjustable pedal and Smith explained how to mount a sensor on a support structure)Patentee overcame rejection by adding limitation of fixed pivot point during adjustmentAsano (which does include a fixed pivot) was not before the PTO; court said that if Asano was before the PTO, Claim 4 would have been rejected over Smith and Asano combination
Federal CircuitFederal Circuit reversed (in an UNPUBLISHED, NON-PRECEDENTIAL decision)– “When obviousness is based on the teachings of
multiple prior art references, the movant must also establish some “suggestion, teaching, or motivation”that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed.”
– Noted that trial court failed to establish motivation –None of the references directed to same problem as Teleflex patent
Asano directed at solving “constant ratio problem”Rixon “suffers from the problem” solved by Teleflex Smith did not relate to adjustable pedals and although it solved wire chafing problem of Rixon, that wasn’t the same problem the Teleflex patent was designed to solve
Holding:“The Federal Circuit addressed the obviousness question in a narrow, rigidmanner that is inconsistent with § 103 and this Court’s precedents. KSR provided convincing evidence that . . . The Engelgau patent’s claim 4 is obvious.”
“[O]ur cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied in its TSM test here.”
Applying this to the current case, the Court agreed with the trial court: “[W]e see little difference between the teachings of Asano and Smith and the adjustable electronic pedal disclosed in claim 4 of the Engelgau patent.”
Predictability: “A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”
Rigid Application of TSM Test: “There is no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Grahamanalysis. But when a court transforms the general principle into a rigid rule that limits the obviousness inquiry, as the Court of Appeals did here, it errs.”
KSR QuotesCommon Sense: “Rigid preventative rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense…are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.”Obvious Solution: “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obviousis by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.”– Stated another way: an invention is obvious if the
KSR QuotesOrdinary Creativity: “The idea that a designer…would ignore Asano because Asano was designed to solve the constant ratio problem makes little sense. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”Design Need / Market Pressure: “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Post – KSR Test(s)Graham v. John Deere Test:– Scope and content of the prior art– Differences between the prior art and the claimed
invention– Level of ordinary skill– Secondary considerations as commercial success,
long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.TSM (Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation) –Applicable as one test under a more flexible reviewDesign Need / Market PressureKnown Problem – Predictable SolutionPerson of Ordinary CreativityOrdinary Common Sense
Cases Post - KSRLeapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc. decided May 9, 2007– Defendant argued asserted claim was
obvious and that “particularized and specific motivations to combine need not be found in the prior art references themselves in the context of an improvement that arises from a desire to improve a known device.”
– Fed Cir agreed – “An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.”
Concern that KSR opinion resurrects “obvious to try” standard Application Preparation:– Providing support for unexpected results – Demonstrating unpredictability of outcome– Where applicable demonstrate that there
were too many possible avenues to pursue to ender the particular claimed solution predictable
Prosecution– Greater reliance on declarations to provide
USPTO Internal Memo re KSR:– Therefore, in formulating a rejection
under 103(a) based upon a combination of prior art elements, it remains necessary to identify the reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined prior art elements in the manner claimed